From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8AD6B0055 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: slab: setup allocators earlier in the boot sequence From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <1244814852.30512.67.camel@penberg-laptop> References: <200906111959.n5BJxFj9021205@hera.kernel.org> <1244770230.7172.4.camel@pasglop> <1244779009.7172.52.camel@pasglop> <1244780756.7172.58.camel@pasglop> <1244783235.7172.61.camel@pasglop> <1244792079.7172.74.camel@pasglop> <1244792745.30512.13.camel@penberg-laptop> <1244796045.7172.82.camel@pasglop> <1244796211.30512.32.camel@penberg-laptop> <1244796837.7172.95.camel@pasglop> <1244797659.30512.37.camel@penberg-laptop> <1244814852.30512.67.camel@penberg-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:02:50 +1000 Message-Id: <1244815370.7172.169.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Christoph Lameter , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel list , linux-mm , mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@suse.de List-ID: On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:54 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Christoph, > > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 09:49 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Best thing to do is to recognize the fact that we are still in early boot > > in the allocators. Derived allocators (such as slab and vmalloc) mask bits > > using GFP_RECLAIM_MASK and when doing allocations through the page > > allocator. You could make GFP_RECLAIM_MASK a variable. During boot > > __GFP_WAIT would not be set in GFP_RECLAIM_MASK. > > Ben's patch does something like that and I have patches that do that > floating around too. > > The problem here is that it's not enough that we make GFP_RECLAIM_MASK a > variable. There are various _debugging checks_ that happen much earlier > than that. We need to mask out those too which adds overhead to > kmalloc() fastpath, for example. Hrm... I though I stuck my masking before the lockdep tests but maybe I missed some... Again, I'm not saying my patch is the best way to solve it. My point is more that the callers shouldn't have to bother. (And thus the WARN_ON isn't right :-) Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org